Comm.of Income Tax , Bikaner v. M/S. Suner Marbles & Granites Pvt. Ltd
High Court
21 Nov 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Comm.of Income Tax , Bikaner v. M/S. Suner Marbles & Granites Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
21 Nov 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Comm.of Income Tax , Bikaner v. M/S. Suner Marbles & Granites Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR --------------------------------------------------------
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 135 of 2007
COMM.OF INCOME TAX , BIKANER
V/S
M/S. SUNER MARBLES & GRANITES PVT. LTD.
Mr. KK BISSA, for the appellant / petitioner
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J.
-----
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
It has been found by the learned Tribunal that inearlier years also when the assessee while showing thestock did not include the element of excise duty, suchdisclosure excluding excise duty was upheld upto theTribunal, and that has not been challenged by the Revenue.
In that view of the matter if during subsequent
years also the assessee while making disclosure of thestock did not include the element of excise duty it cannotbe said to be a case of escapement entitling the assessingauthority to initiate proceedings on the ground ofescapement, and may be that as contended by the learnedcounsel for the appellant that the excise duty was requiredto be included in the stock as the view has been taken by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court but then here the case is that inthe case of this assessee as noticed above even in previousyear it was held that it was not necessary to include theelement of excise duty. In that view of the matter, itcannot be said that it is a case of escapement. Thus, we donot find any ground to interfere with the impugned order ofthe learned Tribunal.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J.
/sushil/
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.